Once upon a time, the term “human rights” referred to the right to not be physically harassed for your beliefs, the right to not be oppressed by your government, and the right to live your life with a sense of dignity and with no one preventing you from being able to provide for yourself and your family.
That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore, at least as far as one “human rights group” is concerned.
In the upcoming case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs Bruen, one international human rights group, which used to spend its time protesting oppressive totalitarian regimes, decided that they needed to get involved to prevent the possibility of the State of New York from being changed from a may-issue state, which can deny issuing a person a gun permit for any reason, to a shall-issue state, which means that the state shall-issue a gun permit to anyone requesting it unless that person is prevented by law from owning a firearm (such as convicted felons). For more details about the case itself, see here.
How the “mighty” have fallen. David Kopel gives us the ridiculous details of this situation:
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to enforce the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, an amicus brief from Amnesty International argues that doing so would violate international law.
Even some ardent opponents of civilian gun ownership in general acknowledge that defensive arms are legitimate for people who are the targets of an active genocide campaign. AI disagrees.
So, in other words, Amnesty International thinks that people under despotic governments (which are pretty universally violent) are better off and safer if those people can’t have guns to protect themselves from a thug government.
As if that makes any rational sense in the real world.
Then, there is the issue of international law superseding the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of the United States. According to wikipedia, “In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held that international treaties and laws made pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution.” In other words, international law is not binding on U.S. soil unless Congress has passed that law which, as far as I can tell, hasn’t happened in regards to the issue of will-issue vs shall-issue gun permits. To state it plainly, it doesn’t appear that Amnesty International has any legal standing for their claim that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to obey international law.
The fact of the matter is that Amnesty International needs to go back to actually fighting for human rights instead of trying to make people defenseless. They’ve lost their way, and their argument holds no water in court on this case.
Amnesty International, like most other liberal groups, has moved so far to the left that its positions are simply a joke. OTOH when it pushes absurdities like this, it shows its true colors (red and black) to the world.
Sadly, you’re quite correct. Thanks.
The Reid Decision was critical as liberals claimed according to Article 6 of the Constitution, treaties became the law of the land and thus superseded any federal or local laws. In Reid, the SCOTUS stated, “No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”
What the liberals had tried to argue was that the phrase, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding,” meant treaties became the LAW of the LAND. However, the Court correctly interpreted it to mean any treaty that was in agreement with or, “IN PURSUANCE THEREOF”, with the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
The Reid case specifically was about the attempt to court martial US civilians outside the US under the UCMJ. But the court applied the ruling to all foreign agreements and treaties as well.
Inside the US, the Constitution trumps international law. FU Amnesty International.
Amnesty International just became a “Never Get Another Penny Of Charitable Support” organization. I used to believe in their mission but it looks like they’ve become another group of Woke Joke useful idiots for those who want to control the world with Socialism.
So Amesty International thinks Americans shouldn’t have the “Right” to carry concealed.
I’ve read that they are also against the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. People can’t have too many Rights and freedoms.
It makes one wonder if they have joined up with the gun banning groups, which are run and funded by Micheal Bloomberg,. George Soros, the Chinese government, the U.N., Russia and Mexico.
The evil Brady group has joined up with Mexico to sue gun companies in America. No mention of of all the ex police and ex military that join the cartels and bring their weapons with them.
This really says something, when you have a American group helping Mexico to restrict and ban firearms in America. The Brady group is a traitor to America.
We see what happens when power crazed politiicians take away the “right to keep and bear arms”, like Hitler, Stalin and Castro and many others throughout history. These power crazed madmen have ban guns, swords and bows and arrows. They say ” this is for your own good”.
People talk about slavery, that’s what the far leftist politicians want to make all Americans,. their “New World Order Slaves”. They say “you will obey us, or else, we are now your gods, and you will worship us!”
Protect and support your right to keep and own all types of firearms and accessories.
Join freedom groups like NRA, GOA, CRTKBA, Rocky mountain Elk Foundation, and other organizations that protect owning firearms and hunting.
The far leftist power crazed politicians want to disarm and enslave Americans. Why do you think they are allowing 2 to 3 million illegals to come to America? There is no place for them, or jobs, so they will turn to crime joining gangs, drug dealers, and robbing, raping, and murdering Americans, then the politiicians will declare martial law and dis arm Americans. And Americans will be forced to hand over their homes to the illegals.
The hunting banning groups are joining up with the gun banning groups to ban hunting. If hunting is banned, they say people no longer need hunting guns and they should be banned.
Purchase a hunting license even if you don’t plan to go hunting. Purchase a duck stamp too.
During WW2, Germany and Japan had plans to invade the east coast and the west coast, but were afraid of all the Americans who owned firearms.
Don’t forget that the USA had concentration camps during WW2.
Protect your right to keep and bear arms! Buy more guns and ammo now!
A amicus brief has no legal binding on a court, it simply means friend of the court. Nor does Amnesty International have a legal standing to try to enforce
any arguments of law on the courts. Further, Amnesty International has no legal standing to argue what the United States does within its borders. Therefore, international law has nothing to do with what goes on in the United States. Also, I don’t even think Congress could pass a law in violation of the 2nd. Amendment. As that would have to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, to see if it was legal and not in violation of the United States Constitution. And such a law would of course violate the U.S. Constitution, 2nd. Amendment, as well as all the States of America’s constitutions an laws. I also think that a law that would require a change in the interpretation of the rights and laws under the 2nd. Amendment may require ratification by 2/3rd. Of the the States, because it would bar guns to persons, and therefore, being a violation of the 2nd. Amendment under the U.S.Constitution, as well as their State Constitutions, as it changes how their laws and Constitutions can be applied to persons.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state’s own constitution).
Nice! Also, look up “jury nullification.” I was kicked off of a jury because I asked the D.A. and judge what it meant, lol!
Comments are closed.